Patent decision

BL number
O/057/09
Concerning rights in
GB0623798.6
Hearing Officer
Dr L Cullen
Decision date
25 February 2009
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc
Provisions discussed
PA 1977, section 1(2); Patents Rules 2007, rule 107
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused), Rectification of irregularities, Section 20 period
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application related to a modeling system for use in modeling the flow of material between items or modules of processing plant along connecting ‘entities’ such as conveyor belts or in pipes. This system also facilitates provision of a graphical display of the modelled process to an operator. Objects referred to as ‘smart process objects’ are adapted to control, simulate, and display, the elements of the process plant. A number of such ‘smart process objects’ may be connected together to model different items, modules or sub-systems of a large process plant. Monitored data was collected and used to provide a simulation of elements of the process plant. The system facilitated the combining of modeled and real data for use by an operator. Claims were made to a modeling system and to a method of modeling process plant.

Following Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, the hearing officer found that the independent claims covered two possible situations. The first related solely to a computer program as the data utilized was potentially pre-gathered and used offline independently of the process plant from which it was gathered, and, as such, this contribution was merely the processing of data. In the second, the contribution was to utilize real time online data and, as it was embedded within the process system, to use this data to contribute to an improved processing system. On the basis of the first situation, the hearing officer found that the claims on file related to excluded matter. A possible way forward to address this problem by amendment was discussed.

However, in considering this possible way forward, it emerged that the compliance period for putting the application in order had expired. In looking into the circumstances around the handling of the case and the expiry of the compliance period, it was found that an error had occurred on behalf of the office in its processing of this case. As a consequence, the hearing officer considered that it was appropriate for the Comptroller to exercise his discretion under rule 107, to allow the applicant a period of time to put his application in order.

Full decision O/057/09 PDF document319Kb